No will, no way

No doubt, the draft Bill did not go as far as it should have. But it went beyond the EC directive in a very crucial way. The draft Bill provided for not only information, but even dis-qualification of a candidate, if he faced a minimum of two charges in heinous crimes like murder, rape, etc. In fact, had the government succeeded in getting the Bill through in this session of the Parliament, it would have been a coup for those who have a stake in cleaning up the system. It would have been a landmark step towards purging the system of hardened criminals and mafia dons.

The story of electoral reform down the years is notable for the twists and turns it did not take. In 1992, in a unanimous resolution, a chief minister’s conference expressed concern at the increasing criminalisation of politics and the politicisation of criminals. But no concrete follow-up action was taken. The following year, the Vohra Committee reported that mafia gangs enjoyed the patronage of politicians and their leaders got elected to the state assemblies and Parliament and that the mafia network was virtually running a parallel government. Again no follow up action was taken. In August 1997, the EC revealed depressing statistics of the number of candidates with criminal records in our Lok Sabha and state assemblies. (Of the 13,952 candidates who contested the 1996 Lok Sabha elections, nearly 1,500 had criminal records of murder, dacoity, rape, thefts or extortion; in the 11th Lok Sabha nearly 40 members had criminal records and nearly 700 MLAs, out of 4,722 in the country, were involved in criminals cases). The EC, therefore, made out a strong case for immediate legislation and administrative action. Only a few days later, the Lok Sabha adopted a resolution on the golden jubilee year celebration, pledging that all political parties would undertake steps to clean the polity of criminalisation. That remained a pious resolution. In fact, most parties accommodated criminals, some liberally, in the 1998 Lok Sabha elections. It is on record that the Law Commission recommended the amendment of the Representation of People Act to disqualify even those facing trial in courts of law.

There have been two genuine apprehensions, however. One, of ruling parties misusing the police in foisting false cases against political opponents and, two, of cases being registered for taking part in political agitations. This was what was sought to be allayed in the government’s draft Bill by including only crimes slotted under the category ‘heinous’, and by providing for a minimum number of two cases in which charges have been framed in courts, on the basis of prima-facie evidence, for disqualification.

Coming out of the all party meeting on August 2, 2002, a Congress leader reportedly justified the rejection of the proposed draft bill 2002, by saying that a Bill for a ‘civilised society’ was needed. Perhaps he did not feel there was anything ‘uncivilised’ in a system which allowed persons with criminal records to sit in Parliament and state assemblies. Laloo Yadav reportedly went a step further and suggested that only final convictions — that is, those upheld in appellate court — should be taken into account for disqualification. He cited the case of Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Jayalalithaa whose conviction was set aside by a higher court.

One can understand the difficulties of Laloo Yadav. One of his ministers of state is languishing in jail, awaiting trial in a case of murder at Sheikhpura in Bihar. The minister’s father, a Congress MP, also allegedly involved in the conspiracy, surrendered after this anticipatory bail petition was rejected and is now on regular bail. Another minister was convicted only a little while ago at Samastipur of a charge of murder and sent to jail. Yet another minister was being hunted out by his own police on the charge of murder, at Nawada, a few months ago.

The above highlights the enormity of the problem and the havoc that the criminalisation of politics has perpetrated on our political system. The all-party meeting agreed to a Bill which will incorporate provisions completely watering down the directive of the Election Commission. The ordinance and the legislation that will finally emerge from the next session of Parliament will not be for reform of the election process but only directed at nullifying the EC directive. On electoral reform, unfortunately, we are back to square one.

(The writer is a former CBI officer)